Live data from Hacker News

Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

sciencedirect.com

31–40 of 111 posts

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#31
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did keto for 5 months or so back in 2014. I found the brain fog description very apt. I couldn't think beyond a couple of moves ahead, which began affecting my work. Going back to a normal diet I was fine again.

I believe it's very much a person to person thing, I typically feel much clearer on a keto/low carb diet.

Or maybe none of this mumbo jumbo does anything and you're all fools?

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno. I’ve only read the abstract [1], but I feel like the second paper was like, “glucose = bad because of glycemic response? Nope!” And the first paper was just like, “glucose = bad” That is, the earlier paper noticed that consuming glucose/sucrose-containing beverages reduced cognitive performance compared to consuming beverages with no glucose, and the later paper was trying to figure out why. And to figure ou…

I think you got it mixed up, because the second paper is not > "glucose = bad because of glycemic response? Nope!” but rather: “glucose = bad because of perceived sweetness? Nope!” There are sweeteners that do not activate insulin (like stevia). I am not aware if the converse exists though (not-sweet-tasting molecules that activate insulin). Their case in the paper is that fructose is not "bad" (like glucose is) desp…

We might be referring to different “second” papers :) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00319... is about about perceived sweetness

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-00749-6 is about glycemic response, which I referred to as the second paper

Though it could be argued that both papers were trying to figure out why glucose = bad (the first, testing perceived sweetness, and the second, glycemic response)

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#33

Humans evolved colour vision to detect ripe fruit. Fruit has a, relatively, considerable amount of sugar. For such a substantial mutation, for which all of us share, it would seem counter-productive to evolve such a trait that harms us.

Sure... oxygen is good for us but it becomes toxic if we get too much of it (like with anything). Perhaps if we were living more like rugged-style, svelte cavemen it would be okay to get a burst of sugar here and there (instead of every time we plop down on the couch or roll through a drive-through).

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#34

Humans evolved colour vision to detect ripe fruit. Fruit has a, relatively, considerable amount of sugar. For such a substantial mutation, for which all of us share, it would seem counter-productive to evolve such a trait that harms us.

My impression was that was just a theory based on the assumption that fruit was worth evolving to eat. It could be a happy accidental source with calories; or it could have been a great source of calories that was the best option at the time, but is no longer.

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#35

Humans evolved colour vision to detect ripe fruit. Fruit has a, relatively, considerable amount of sugar. For such a substantial mutation, for which all of us share, it would seem counter-productive to evolve such a trait that harms us.

Or did plants evolve colored fruit because the plants with colored fruit were recognized most easily and thus spread the most by animals (including humans)?

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#36
post #31
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's very much a person to person thing, I typically feel much clearer on a keto/low carb diet.

Or maybe none of this mumbo jumbo does anything and you're all fools?

If I'm foolish here, then I am to still be less foolish than someone who doesn't know when to simply keep their opinion to themselves.

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#37
post #6

It's only N=1 anecdata but since going to a VLC/Keto diet I've felt cognitively sharper (in addition to other benefits like losing weight, needing less sleep, etc).

I've read that keto diets cause brain fog. I searched it quickly and a bunch of results turned up, too. Is keto intended to be a long term diet?

The answer is: it depends.

The first two weeks while the body adapts, can have worse things than brain fog, and they are known as the keto flu.

Some people can suffer from it, others are just fine all the time.

After your body adjusts, you can feel sharper for a longer time than in carb heavy diets.

In my particular case: I used to work fine for about two or even three hours after lunch (getting my carbs to be able to work).

Now, with a keto diet, I can work for eight hours straight. I am and feel sharper. I have been in Keto for years now.

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some would say keto is a way of eating as opposed to a diet that can been seen as a temporary change of eating habits. I've never heard anybody say that keto causes brain fog. In fact a lot of people describes the opposite result which I would think most search results are about. There's also something called "keto flu" which some people experience for some time when they switch to a keto diet. These terms are pretty…

I did keto for 5 months or so back in 2014. I found the brain fog description very apt. I couldn't think beyond a couple of moves ahead, which began affecting my work. Going back to a normal diet I was fine again.

You do yourself.

If "normal" diet works, keep on it. Cheers.

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#39
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The research on that whole area of psychology is inclusive at best, despite making a fun and compelling narrative. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29591537/

Inconclusive?

Correct: as in there isn't actually sufficient evidence to make the case one way or the other, based on the data that has since been published (which means we know even less than "it isn't true").

Re: Comparative assessments of dietary sugars on cognitive performance (2018)

#40

Humans evolved colour vision to detect ripe fruit. Fruit has a, relatively, considerable amount of sugar. For such a substantial mutation, for which all of us share, it would seem counter-productive to evolve such a trait that harms us.

Earlier fruits didn't have anywhere near the sugar content of the cultivated ones today. In fact, many fruits of old were inedible (e.g. apples).

Sources of sugar such as sweet fruits and honey were rare delicacies, not daily occurrences.

Humans in various regions would have adapted over 1000 generations to better match their environment.

We live in a VERY different world now.

Post reply on HN